Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In an important judgment relevant to several judiciary aspirants, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 20) restored the condition that a minimum practice of three years as an advocate is necessary for a candidate to apply for entry-level posts in judicial service.

The period of practice could be reckoned from the date of provisional enrollment. The said condition will, however, not apply to recruitment process already initiated by the High Courts before today. In other words, this condition will apply only to future recruitments.

"All High Courts and State Governments shall amend the service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have a practice of a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for said examination," the Court ordered.

"The said requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable where the concerned High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of civil judge and shall be applicable for next recruitment process," the Court added.

To fulfil the said requirement, the candidate must possess a certificate duly certified either by the Principal Judicial officer of that court, or an advocate of that court having minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal Judicial officer of that district or a Principal Judicial Officer of such station.

In case of a person practising at the Supreme Court or the High Court, a certificate by an advocate having a minimum standing of ten years, endorsed by an officer designated by the Court, will act as proof.

Experience as law clerks can also be counted towards the 3-year practice condition.

"We further direct that the experience of the candidate which they have gained working as law clerks with any of the judges or judicial officers of the country, will also be considered while calculating total number of years of practice," the Court observed.

Allowing fresh law graduates to enter the judiciary has led to problems

In the judgment, the Court said that allowing fresh law graduates to enter judicial service without even a single day of practice has led to problems.

"For the last 20 years, during which the recruitment of fresh law graduates have been appointed as judicial officers without a single day of practice at the bar has not been a successful experience. Such fresh law graduates have led to many problems..

The judges, from the very day when they assume office, deal with the issues of life, liberty, property, and reputation of litigants. Neither knowledge based on law books nor pre-service training could be an adequate substitute to the first hand experience of the working of the court system and administration of justice. This is possible when the candidate is exposed to the working of the court...and observing how lawyers and judges function in the court.

The candidates should be equipped to understand the intracies of a judge and therefore, we are in agreement with most of the high courts that the requirement of the introduction of certain number of years of practice is necessary,"

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice AG Masih and Justice K Vinod Chandran pronounced the verdict in the All India Judges Association case. The judgment also issued directions regarding the promotion quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Exam.

Initially, there was a condition in most States that only lawyers with a minimum practice of three years could apply for judicial service.

In 2002, the Supreme Court had done away with the minimum practice requirement, allowing fresh law graduates to apply for Munsiff-Magistrate posts. However, applications were later filed in the Supreme Court seeking the reinstatement of the condition that only lawyers. Several High Courts also backed the move to reinstate the minimum practice requirement.

The Court had reserved judgment on the applications on January 28, 2025. After the judgment was reserved, the Court stayed the recruitment process which was initiated by the Gujarat High Court without the minimum service condition.

Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, raised concerns about allowing fresh law graduates entry to the judicial service without any practical experience as an advocate. The bench also shared similar concerns during the hearing. However, the bench also deliberated how effective the practice period would be, as aspirants might just sign vakalaths for namesake along with some other lawyers, without any effective practice.

More or less, all High Courts took a stand that a prior practice of two or three years is required for efficient functioning as judicial officers. Most High Courts and States are of the view that the entry of fresh law graduates to judicial service was "counter-productive."

Except the High Courts of Rajasthan and Sikkim, no other High Court has opposed such reintroduction of the pre-requisite of practice at the Bar.

The States of Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Nagaland and Tripura also opposed the reintroduction of the said condition.

In the 2002 judgment in the All India Judges Association case, the Supreme Court observed:

"In the All India Judges's case [1993] 4 SCC 288 at p. 314; this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three year's standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 year of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with.

After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years' standing we accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges' cases direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years."

Other stories about the judgment can be read here.

Case : All India Judges Association vs Union of India (Minimum Practice & LDCE issue)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Click here to read the judgment